University of Birmingham
Effects of antisocial behaviour on opponent's anger, attention, and performance Ring, Christopher; Kavussanu, Maria; Al-yaaribi, Ali Salam Ali; Tenenbaum, Gershon; Stanger, Nicholas DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2018.1532061 License: Other (please specify with Rights Statement)
Document Version Peer reviewed version Citation for published version (Harvard): Ring, C, Kavussanu, M, Al-yaaribi, ASA, Tenenbaum, G & Stanger, N 2019, 'Effects of antisocial behaviour on opponent's anger, attention, and performance', Journal of Sports Sciences, vol. 37, no. 8, pp. 871–877. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2018.1532061
Link to publication on Research at Birmingham portal
Publisher Rights Statement: This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Journal of Sports Sciences on 29/10/2018, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/02640414.2018.1532061
General rights Unless a licence is specified above, all rights (including copyright and moral rights) in this document are retained by the authors and/or the copyright holders. The express permission of the copyright holder must be obtained for any use of this material other than for purposes permitted by law.
• Users may freely distribute the URL that is used to identify this publication. • Users may download and/or print one copy of the publication from the University of Birmingham research portal for the purpose of private study or non-commercial research. • User may use extracts from the document in line with the concept of ‘fair dealing’ under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (?) • Users may not further distribute the material nor use it for the purposes of commercial gain.
Where a licence is displayed above, please note the terms and conditions of the licence govern your use of this document.
When citing, please reference the published version. Take down policy While the University of Birmingham exercises care and attention in making items available there are rare occasions when an item has been uploaded in error or has been deemed to be commercially or otherwise sensitive.
If you believe that this is the case for this document, please contact [email protected] providing details and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate.
Download date: 30. Sep. 2021 VERBAL ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
1
2 JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES
3
4
5
6 Effects of Opponent Verbal Antisocial Behaviour on Anger, Attention, and Performance
7
8 Ring, C.,1 Kavussanu, M.,1 Al-Yaaribi, A.,1 & Tenenbaum, G.,2 & Stanger, N.3
9
10 1 University of Birmingham, 2 University of Florida, 3 Leeds Beckett University
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
[1]
VERBAL ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
1 Abstract
2 Sledging, a form of verbal antisocial behaviour in sport, aims to impair an opponent’s
3 performance. Variations in performance have been attributed to changes in emotion and
4 cognition. To improve our understanding of this phenomenon, the current experiment
5 examined the effects of verbal antisocial behaviour on anger, attention and performance.
6 Participants performed a competitive basketball free-throw shooting task under insult
7 (verbal behaviour designed to offend and upset the performer), distraction (verbal behaviour
8 designed to draw attention away from the task), or control (neutral verbal behaviour)
9 conditions. Performance was assessed by the number of successful baskets and a points-
10 based scoring system, while anger and attention were measured post-task. The insult
11 condition provoked more anger than the control and distraction conditions, whereas the
12 insult and distraction conditions increased distraction and reduced self-focus compared to
13 the control condition. Although verbal antisocial behaviour had no overall direct effect on
14 performance, mediation analysis revealed that anger indirectly impaired performance via
15 distraction. Implications for the antisocial behaviour-performance relationship are discussed.
[2]
VERBAL ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
1 Effects of Opponent Verbal Antisocial Behaviour on Anger, Attention and Performance
2 Sledging, a form of verbal antisocial behaviour, defined as behaviour intended to harm
3 or disadvantage another (Kavussanu & Boardley, 2009; Sage, Kavussanu, & Duda, 2006), is
4 commonplace in sport. For example, during the opening match of the 2017 International
5 Cricket Council’s Champions Trophy, England's bowler Ben Stokes sledged Bangladesh's
6 batsman Tamim Iqbal, causing the batsman to complain to the umpires. The debate over the
7 morality of such conduct in sport (Lee, 1998) has produced polarized views; some think it is
8 acceptable (Summers, 2007) whereas others consider it cheating and/or gamesmanship
9 (Dixon, 2007, 2008; Lee, Whitehead, & Ntoumanis, 2007; Potter, 1947). Surprisingly few
10 studies have examined the impact of verbal antisocial behaviour on others. For instance,
11 recent evidence has shown that verbal antisocial behaviour by teammates may influence the
12 recipients’ feelings, thoughts, and actions (Al-Yaaribi & Kavussanu, 2017; Al-Yaaribi,
13 Kavussanu, & Ring, 2016).
14 Sledging shares similarities with the concept of trash talking, defined as “insulting or
15 boastful speech intended to demoralise, intimidate or humiliate an opponent in athletic
16 contest” (Rainey & Granito, 2010), which is believed to impair performance by many
17 athletes (Conmy, 2005; Rainey & Granito, 2010). Thus, athletes could be motivated to use
18 comments to try and gain an advantage over opponents and increase their own chances of
19 winning (Tamborini, Chory, Lachlan, Westerman, & Skalski, 2008). However, it has yet to be
20 established whether, and how, verbal antisocial behaviour influences performance. Trash
21 talking can be classified based on intended outcome. First, one can try to insult opponents
22 by demeaning their skills or calling them offensive names (Rainey & Granito, 2010). Second,
23 one can attempt to distract opponents by making them think about or look at external
24 stimuli, such as the weather (Conmy, 2005, 2008). Given that attention (Abernethy, 2001;
[3]
VERBAL ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
1 Wilson, 2008) and emotion (Hanin, 2000; Lazarus, 2000) can influence sport performance,
2 verbal antisocial behaviour could influence performance by distracting or annoying athletes.
3 Verbal antisocial behaviour could impair motor performance via attention in one of
4 two ways: distraction and self-focus (for reviews see Abernethy, 2001; Gray, 2011; Masters
5 & Maxwell, 2008; Vine, Moore, & Wilson et al., 2016; Wilson, 2008; Wulf, 2013). First,
6 verbal comments might draw attentional resources away from the task. Although this
7 hypothesis is supported by reports that 19% of athletes believe trash talking distracts
8 opponents, other evidence suggests that verbal comments encourage the recipients to focus
9 and play better (Conmy, 2005). Second, performance of a motor task can be disrupted by
10 focusing attention on task execution and monitoring. Self-focus can be further increased if
11 verbal comments are perceived as a source of pressure (Baumeister, 1984). In sum, changes
12 in attention offer a plausible route through which verbal antisocial behaviour might affect
13 performance.
14 Verbal antisocial behaviour has been associated with anger in some studies (Al-Yaaribi
15 & Kavussanu, 2017; Al-Yaaribi et al., 2016) but not others (Conmy, 2008; Conmy,
16 Tenenbaum, Eklund, Roehrig, & Filho, 2013). For instance, Conmy and colleagues asked
17 competitors to report their affect before and after playing a computer game in silence or
18 trash-talk conditions; the verbal comments did not change affect or performance. Anger has
19 the capacity to impair sport performance (Beedie, Terry, & Lane, 2000; Uphill, Groom, &
20 Jones, 2014), perhaps by switching attention to the provocateur (Lazarus, 2000) and/or
21 impairing concentration (Silva, 1979; Vast, Young, & Thomas, 2010). However, it can
22 improve performance on effortful tasks (Woodman et al., 2009). Finally, there is evidence
23 consistent with the view that teammate verbal antisocial behaviour can impair (via reduced
24 effort) and improve (via increased anger and effort) subjective performance in basketball and
[4]
VERBAL ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
1 football players (Al-Yaaribi et al., 2016). In sum, verbal insults have the potential to influence
2 the recipient’s performance via changes in anger.
3 Our study had two purposes. Our first purpose was to experimentally examine the
4 effects of verbal antisocial behaviour by an opponent on anger, attention, and performance.
5 We hypothesised that verbal antisocial behaviour would reduce performance of a basketball
6 free-throw shooting task, elicit anger, and impair attention. We also hypothesised that
7 insult-based comments would lead to greater anger, and that distraction-based comments
8 would disrupt attention, evidenced by increased distraction and self-focus. Our second
9 purpose was to examine whether performance was related to attention and anger, and
10 whether the effects of anger on performance were mediated by changes in attention. We
11 hypothesised that performance would be negatively related to anger, distraction, and self-
12 focus, and that anger would disrupt attention.
13 Method
14 Participants
15 Participants were 60 (30 males, 30 females) undergraduate sport and exercise science
16 students (M = 19.45, SD = 1.25 years old) recruited from a British university. We tested
17 both males and females to increase the generalizability of the findings. Participants took part
18 in the experiment in exchange for course credit. They had experience playing competitive
19 sport (M = 7.60, SD = 3.82 years). None of the participants identified basketball as their
20 main sport, and at the time of testing, they indicated that they had never (55%), rarely
21 (37%), or sometimes (8%) played basketball. Thus, participants were experienced athletes
22 but relative novices in basketball.
23 Experimental Design
24 We employed an experimental design, with Group (insult, distraction, control) as the
25 between-subjects factor and Condition (baseline, competition) as the within-subjects factor.
[5]
VERBAL ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
1 Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: insult, distraction, or control.
2 There were 10 males and 10 females in each group.
3 Task and Equipment
4 The task involved shooting basketball free throws from a distance of 4.57 m using a
5 size 7 (diameter = 0.23 m) basketball (Nike Baller) through a standard size hoop (diameter
6 = 0.46 m), which was positioned 3.05 m from the ground. Similar tasks have been used in
7 previous experimental research (e.g., Hardy & Parfitt, 1991; Kavussanu, Crews, & Gill, 1998;
8 Tauer & Harakiewicz, 2004). The apparatus (Powerhoop) comprised a hoop, backboard (1.2
9 × 0.9 m), pole, and base.
10 Measures
11 Participants were presented with the stem “During the last ten free throws, I felt …”
12 followed by the items measuring each variable. Responses to each item were made on a 7-
13 point scale and ranged from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely). Each variable was measured by
14 averaging responses to the respective items as described below. The item pool was designed
15 to avoid overburdening participants.
16 Anger. Anger was measured using the anger scale of the Sport Emotion
17 Questionnaire (Jones, Lane, Bray, Uphill, & Catlin, 2005). Participants responded to four
18 items: “angry”, “annoyed”, “irritated”, and “furious”. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for anger
19 were .89 in both the baseline and competition conditions.
20 Distraction. Participants responded to two items: “distracted” and “focused”.
21 Similar attention ratings have been used in past research (e.g., Vast et al., 2010). The latter
22 item was reverse scored. Alpha coefficients for distraction were .76 and .69 in the baseline
23 and competition conditions, respectively.
24 Self-focus. Self-focus was measured using an adapted version (Cooke, Kavussanu,
25 McIntyre, Boardley, & Ring, 2011; Vine, Moore, Cooke, Ring, & Wilson, 2013) of the
[6]
VERBAL ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
1 conscious motor processing scale of the Movement Specific Reinvestment Scale (Orrell,
2 Masters, & Eves, 2009). Participants responded to three items: “I was conscious of my
3 movements”, “I reflected about my technique”, and “I was aware of the way my body was
4 working”. Alpha coefficients for self-focus were .66 and .86 in the baseline and competition
5 conditions, respectively.
6 Performance. We collected two measures of performance. First, we recorded the
7 number of successful baskets made out of 10 free-throw attempts, in line with previous
8 research (e.g., Kavussanu, et al., 1998; Tauer & Harakiewicz, 2004). Second, we measured
9 performance using a categorical points-based scoring system (Hardy & Parfitt, 1991): clean
10 basket (5 points), rim and in (4 points), backboard and in (3 points), rim and out (2 points),
11 backboard and out (1 point), complete miss (0 points). A total score was created by
12 summing the points for the 10 free-throws; thus, the total score could range between 0 and
13 50 points. By assessing performance over 10 trials, we attempted to strike a balance
14 between ecological validity and measurement reliability.
15 Manipulation Checks
16 Participants rated the extent to which they “felt competitive during the task” on a
17 scale, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely). This rating served as a manipulation check
18 for the competition. Differences between conditions in anger and distraction/self focus were
19 used to check that the verbal antisocial behaviour manipulation worked as intended.
20 Selection of Comments
21 The comments were selected based on a pilot study. They were generated by two
22 academics (1 male, 1 female) with extensive experience teaching and researching in sport
23 psychology together with three college athletes (1 male, 2 females) with many years of
24 experience playing high level competitive sport. Twenty college athletes (10 males, 10
25 females), who played competitive sport at high levels (club, country, or national), and who
[7]
VERBAL ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
1 had many years of experience playing sport, were given definitions of an insult comment
2 (i.e., a verbal comment aimed to impair performance by offending a person) and a
3 distraction comment (i.e., a verbal comment aimed to impair performance by drawing
4 attention away from the task). Then, they were asked to classify 18 comments as insult,
5 distraction, or neither.
6 The six comments most frequently classified as insult and the six comments most
7 frequently classified as distraction by the athletes were presented to a separate sample of 12
8 college athletes (6 males, 6 females), who rated the extent to which they thought that each
9 insult comment would insult a performer and each distraction comment would distract a
10 performer during a basketball free throw task; responses were made on a Likert scale,
11 anchored by –3 (strongly disagree) to +3 (strongly agree). Based on this process, we
12 selected the five comments from each category which attracted the highest ratings, and used
13 them in the experimental manipulations. The five insult comments (M = 0.68) were: “Not
14 sure those clothes suit you”; “Didn’t bother to do your hair today”; “A blind man would
15 score better than you”; “I see you need some coaching”; “I think you need to get down the
16 gym”. The five distraction comments (M = 0.48) were: “Make sure your laces are done up”;
17 “Look at that squirrel”; “The weather is a bit rubbish!”; “(Name of a popular television
18 program, which varied depending on the schedule) was good last night”; “Can’t wait ‘til
19 dinner tonight”.
20 Procedure
21 Upon approval of the study protocol by the local research ethics committee,
22 participants were tested individually attending a single testing session run by two
23 experimenters. Testing took place outdoors. One experimenter gave instructions to the
24 participant and collected the data (and is referred to as the “experimenter”) and a second
25 experimenter acted as the confederate pretending to be another participant (and is referred
[8]
VERBAL ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
1 to as the “confederate”); the confederate was gender-matched to the participant in line with
2 previous research (Cooke, Kavussanu, McIntyre, & Ring, 2011). Participants were pseudo-
3 randomly assigned to one of the three groups (i.e., insult, distraction, or control), with the
4 constraint that there were 10 males and 10 females in each group.
5 The protocol was the same for all three groups. First, the experimenter informed the
6 participant that the study aimed to investigate the effects of competition on performance,
7 outlined the protocol, and provided instructions on how to shoot a basketball free throw.
8 Then, the participant performed five practice free throws in order to become familiar with
9 the task, followed by 10 free throws, which constituted the pre-test (or baseline). Next, the
10 participant responded to the items measuring anger and attention and the manipulation
11 check. In the meantime, the confederate completed the practice and pre-test free-throws.
12 Both the participant and the confederate performed the practice and pre-test free-throws
13 alone in the presence of only the experimenter.
14 Upon completion of the pre-test, the competition took place. The experimenter
15 explained to both the participant and confederate at the same time that the goal was to beat
16 the other person, with the winner being entered into a draw to win a £30 prize, and
17 informed the participant that he or she had been randomly selected to perform the free-
18 throw task first. Then the manipulation was administered while the participant performed
19 the ten free throws. In the two experimental groups, the confederate verbalized each of the
20 five insult or distraction comments to the participant, just as he or she was about to
21 attempt the first, third, fourth, seventh, and ninth free-throw. In the control group, the
22 participant completed the competition while the confederate looked on silently. Both at
23 pre-test and during the competition, the participant completed the free throws at their own
24 pace. Upon completion of the 10 free throws, the participant responded to the items
25 measuring anger and attention and the competition manipulation check. Finally, the
[9]
VERBAL ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
1 confederate completed the task (but no data were recorded). At the end of the experiment,
2 the participant was thanked, debriefed, and asked not to disclose the protocol to anyone.
3 Preliminary Data Analyses and Data Analytic Strategy
4 A series of 3 Group (insult, distraction, control) x 2 Condition (baseline, competition)
5 x 2 Gender (males, females) analyses of variance were conducted on the dependent
6 measures to look for potential gender differences. These exploratory analyses indicated no
7 gender main effects and no gender interaction effects for any variable. Therefore, gender
8 was not included as a factor in the main analyses reported below.
9 Our analytic strategy was designed to address our two study purposes. Our first
10 purpose was to determine the effects of verbal antisocial behaviour on anger, attention, and
11 performance. This purpose was addressed by conducting analyses of covariance
12 (ANCOVAs), with Group (insult, distraction, control) as a between-subjects factor and pre-
13 test (baseline) score as a covariate, on our measures of anger, distraction, self-focus, and
14 free throw shooting performance. Our second purpose was to examine whether
15 performance was related to attention and anger, and whether any effects of anger on
16 performance were mediated by changes in attention. This purpose was addressed by
17 computing correlations between the process variables (anger, distraction, self-focus ratings)
18 and outcome variables (number of baskets, shooting performance) to quantify the degree of
19 association. Subsequently, we conducted multiple regressions using the predictor variable
20 (anger), potential mediator variable (attention), and outcome variable (performance) to
21 determine whether anger influenced performance directly and/or indirectly via attention.
22 We report effect size measures for each statistical test to quantify the importance of
23 our findings, and provide values corresponding to small, medium, and large effects (Cohen,
24 1992). For t tests, standardized mean difference, d, values are .20, .50, and .90. For analyses
2 25 of covariance, partial eta-squared, ηp , values are .02, .13, and .25. For Pearson correlations,
[10]
VERBAL ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
1 coefficient, r, values are .10, .30 and .50. For tests of mediation (Preacher & Kelley, 2011),
2 completely standardised indirect effect, CSIE, values are .01, .09, and .25.
3 Results
4 Manipulation Check
5 We performed a Student t-test to examine whether the basketball free-throw task
6 was rated as more competitive in the competition condition compared to the baseline
7 condition. This confirmed that the competition (M = 5.35, SD = 1.34) was judged to be
8 more competitive than baseline (M = 4.43, SD = 1.42), with a large-to-medium effect, t(59) =
9 5.49, p < .001, d = 0.77.
10 Baseline
11 At baseline, participants scored one basket every three free throws (M = 3.32, SD =
12 1.74), achieved a middling total points score (M = 22.50, SD = 5.88), and reported relatively
13 low levels of anger (M = 2.06, SD = 1.31), moderate levels of distraction (M = 3.28, SD =
14 1.04), and high levels of self-focus (M = 4.90, SD = 0.95).
15 Effects of Verbal Antisocial Behaviour: Study Purpose 1
16 Our first study purpose was to experimentally examine the effects of verbal antisocial
17 behaviour by an opponent on the recipient’s anger, attention, and performance. To this end,
18 we performed Analyses of Covariance (ANCOVAs) separately on each variable, with Group
19 (insult, distraction, control) as a between-subjects factor and pre-test score as a covariate.
20 The results of these analyses are presented in Table 1. Significant group effects emerged for
21 both anger and attention. Tukey post-hoc tests revealed that the insult group reported
22 more anger than both the distraction (d = 0.93) and control (d = 0.83) groups, while the
23 distraction and insult groups reported more distraction (d = 0.63 & 0.62, respectively) and
24 less self-focus (d = 1.31 & 1.07, respectively) than the control group2. Importantly, the three
25 groups did not differ in performance.
[11]
VERBAL ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
1 Correlational and Mediation Analyses: Study Purpose 2
2 The second study purpose was to examine whether performance was related to
3 attention and anger, and whether the effects of anger on performance were mediated by
4 changes in attention. These analyses were conducted separately for the baseline and
5 competition conditions.
6 Baseline
7 Pearson correlations indicated that baseline performance was negatively associated
8 with anger (baskets, r = –.35, p < .006; total points, r = –.30, p < .02) and distraction
9 (baskets, r = –.46, p < .001; total points, r = –.37, p < .003), but unrelated to self-focus
10 (baskets, r = .00, p = .99; total points, r = .09, p = .51). Mediation analyses using the
11 PROCESS macro for SPSS (Hayes, 2013) were conducted to examine the anger-attention-
12 performance relationship. We report the point estimate and 95% bias corrected confidence
13 intervals associated with bootstrapping using 10000 samples. With the number of baskets as
14 the outcome variable, anger as the predictor variable, and distraction or self-focus as the
15 potential mediator variable, only distraction mediated the effect of anger on performance
16 (indirect effect = –0.233, 95% CI = –0.493, –0.089, CSIE = –.175). Similarly, with the total
17 points score as the outcome variable, only distraction mediated the effect of anger on
18 performance (indirect effect = –0.626, 95% CI = –1.632, –0.054, CSIE = –.139).
19 Competition.
20 Pearson correlations indicated that performance was negatively associated with
21 distraction (baskets, r = –.36, p < .005; total points, r = –.30, p < .02), positively associated
22 with self-focus (baskets, r = .29, p < .02; total points, r = .36, p < .004), and negatively, albeit
23 not significantly, related to anger (baskets, r = –.18, p = .16; total points, r = –.19, p = .15).
24 Mediation analyses, with the number of baskets as the outcome variable, anger as the
25 predictor variable, distraction or self-focus as the mediator variable, and baseline
[12]
VERBAL ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
1 performance as the covariate, indicated that the effect of anger on performance was
2 mediated by both distraction (indirect effect = –0.320, 95% CI = –0.608, –0.123, CSIE = –
3 .231) and self-focus (indirect effect = –0.100, 95% CI = –0.354, –0.002, CSIE = –.072).
4 Similarly, with total points score as the outcome variable, the effect of anger on
5 performance was again mediated by both distraction (indirect effect = –0.837, 95% CI = –
6 1.693, –0.237, CSIE = –.211) and self-focus (indirect effect = –0.339, 95% CI = –1.111, –
7 0.018, CSIE = –.085).
8 Discussion
9 Previous research has highlighted the prevalence and significance of verbal antisocial
10 behaviour intended to (harm or) disadvantage an opponent in competitive sport (Kavussanu,
11 2008; Lee, 1998; Lee et al., 2007). A number of emotions and cognitions have been
12 implicated in the putative verbal antisocial behaviour-induced impairments in task
13 performance. However, the amount of experimental evidence is extremely limited.
14 Accordingly, the first purpose of our study was to examine the effects of verbal antisocial
15 behaviour by an opponent on anger, attention, and basketball free throw performance. The
16 second purpose of our study was to examine whether performance was related to attention
17 and anger, and whether any effects of anger on performance were mediated by changes in
18 attention. In this section, we discuss our findings.
19 Effects of Antisocial Behaviour
20 In support of our hypothesis, insult-based verbal antisocial behaviour induced anger
21 (Al-Yarribi et al., 2016; Harmon-Jones & Sigelman, 2001; Kavanagh, 2014). Participants in the
22 insult group responded to verbal comments with more anger than did those in both the
23 distraction and control groups. Specifically, the insult group reported relatively low levels of
24 anger, whereas the distraction and control groups reported very low levels of anger. It is
25 possible that the relatively mild emotions evoked by the insults are due to the task being an
[13]
VERBAL ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
1 experiment and not real-world setting, where the goal would have a stronger personal
2 meaning. Our experimental evidence suggests that the negatively-valenced state that was
3 induced by insult-based verbal antisocial behaviour may not have been sufficiently intense to
4 directly impact performance during the competitive basketball free-throw shooting task.
5 Past experimental research shows that anger-induction does not affect fine motor skills,
6 such as reaction time tasks, and can even facilitate gross motor skills, such as force
7 production tasks (Woodman et al., 2009). The effects of verbal antisocial behaviour in the
8 anger-performance relationship may be moderated by the type of task involved; thus, future
9 research employing different types of task could help paint a more detailed and nuanced
10 picture of the relationship between anger and performance in sport (see also Al-Yarribi et
11 al., 2016; Carver, 2001).
12 In line with previous research showing that anger can disrupt the execution of
13 complex psychomotor tasks (Beedie et al., 2000), such as basketball free throw shooting
14 (Uphill, et al., 2014), our second study purpose led us to expect that anger would be
15 associated with impaired performance (Hanin, 2000; Lazarus, 2000). Our pre-test
16 correlation analyses on the baseline measures supported the expected negative anger-
17 performance relationship, with higher anger being linked with fewer successful baskets and
18 lower total points scores.
19 In support of our hypothesis, distraction-based verbal antisocial behaviour increased
20 distraction and decreased self-focus, such that attention was directed away from the
21 execution of the task. We also found that our insult comments disrupted attentional focus
22 to a similar degree as the distraction comments. Previous research has suggested that
23 distraction can interfere with task execution and lead to less accurate movements (e.g.,
24 Abernethy, 2001; Wilson, 2008). We also found that task performance was negatively
25 associated with distraction and positively associated with self-focus, albeit to a lesser extent.
[14]
VERBAL ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
1 However, although the distraction and insult comments elicited changes in attention, they
2 did not affect motor performance. Motivation-related changes in effort (e.g., Cooke,
3 Kavussanu, McIntyre, & Ring, 2010) may have compensated and masked the effects of
4 disruptions to attention associated with verbal antisocial behaviour. Finally, the finding that
5 both distraction and insult groups reported similar attention-related disruptions suggests
6 that any type of verbal communication from an opponent may disrupt attentional focus
7 during the performance of psychomotor skills.
8 Performance
9 Contrary to our hypothesis, verbal antisocial behaviour by an opponent had no direct
10 effect on performance of the basketball free throw shooting task. Participants were able to
11 successfully make one in every three attempts from the free throw line despite the verbal
12 comments from their rival in the basketball shooting competition.1 This finding is in line with
13 the results of Conmy’s (2008) experiment showing that trash talking had no effect on
14 performance on a computer-based American football game. Conmy’s manipulation
15 incorporated a mixture of different types of comments, including ones that were distracting,
16 funny, strategic, and self-aggrandizing. Thus, our finding, using manipulations based on
17 comments from just one category, extends the previous research by showing that personal
18 insults alone and general distracting comments alone do not directly impair performance of
19 a motor skill.
20 The absence of any clear performance deterioration in either of the two
21 experimental groups, who were the recipients of verbal antisocial behaviour, compared to
22 the control group may be explained in other ways. Participants in the two verbal antisocial
23 behaviour groups may have been more motivated than normal to beat their competitor, and
24 therefore increased their effort to counteract the negative impact of the verbal antisocial
25 behaviour and thereby maintain their basketball performance with reduced efficiency
[15]
VERBAL ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
1 (Eysenck & Calvo, 1992; Wilson, 2008). This explanation is compatible with evidence that
2 83% of college athletes reported that being a recipient of trash talk inspired them to try and
3 improve their performance (Conmy, 2005; see also Al-Yarribi et al., 2016).
4 The null findings with respect to a direct effect of verbal comments on performance
5 from our experiment and Conmy’s (2008) experiment run counter to anecdotal evidence of
6 impaired performance by athletes subjected to verbal antisocial behaviour by opponents.
7 For instance, it is claimed that sledging, which can be considered a verbal form of
8 gamesmanship (Lee et al., 2007), is used by the fielding side against the batsmen to cause
9 ‘mental disintegration’ at the crease in a game of cricket (Jeffreys & Newman, 2009; cf.
10 Porter, 1950). Two key differences between the comments used in this experiment and
11 sledges used in a game situation concern their frequency and intensity. We used five
12 comments (on average, one comment every other throw) that were constrained by a
13 research ethics code of practice, whereas during an actual competitive match there are
14 fewer and less limiting constraints. Thus, while our comments increased anger and
15 decreased attentional focus, they were not offensive enough to provoke violent reactions or
16 distracting enough to prevent completion of the task. Future research could examine the
17 effects of a greater number of comments on performance.
18 Our results suggest that sledging does not hinder performance of a motor skill. The
19 extent to which verbal antisocial behaviour impairs performance may be moderated by the
20 way athletes interpret comments from other athletes, with some athletes considering them
21 as motivational and others as disruptive (e.g., Rainey & Granito, 2010). Thus, the appraisal of
22 whether verbal antisocial behaviour is perceived as a challenge or a threat could contribute
23 to this process (Meijen, Jones, McCarthy, & Sheffield, 2014). However, verbal antisocial
24 behaviour appears to disrupt attentional focus and, depending on the content of the
25 comments, may do so by influencing the emotions felt by the recipient. Specifically, our
[16]
VERBAL ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
1 findings suggest that distraction-based verbal antisocial behaviour may directly hinder
2 attention by directing resources to task-irrelevant cues whereas insult-based verbal
3 antisocial behaviour may hinder focus by increasing anger and directing attention away from
4 the task and on to the provoker (e.g., Lazarus, 2000). These speculations are supported by
5 the mediation analyses, which revealed that the effects of anger on performance acted, at
6 least in part, indirectly by distracting attention away from task.
7 It is also important to note that our power calculations showed that with the sample
8 size we recruited, we could detect large differences among the groups. Clearly, such an
9 effect was evident with our distraction and anger ratings, but not performance measures
10 (see Table 1). Verbal antisocial behaviour, particularly acts that involve more frequent and
11 provocative comments, may have a small effect on performance, which we were unable to
12 detect. Finally, it important to point out that previous studies have indicated that novices
13 may profit from a different focus of attention than experts (e.g., Perkins-Ceccato, Passmore,
14 & Lee, 2003) and that they are also using a different focus (e.g., Beilock & Carr, 2001). It is
15 therefore possible that verbal antisocial behaviour would have impaired the performance of
16 expert basketball players. Choking implies an expert status, and therefore, it is possible that
17 experts and novices might differ with respect to the effects of gamesmanship-like verbal
18 antisocial behaviour by other athletes.
19 Limitations and Research Directions
20 The findings of the current study should be interpreted in light of some potential
21 limitations. First, it is possible that the comments may have not been sufficiently distracting
22 or insulting to impair performance. To address this issue, future research could increase the
23 frequency and intensity of comments. Second, performance was assessed over the course
24 of ten free throws. By doing this, we attempted to strike a balance between ecological
25 validity and measurement reliability. Nevertheless, the effects of verbal antisocial behaviour
[17]
VERBAL ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
1 may have been diluted by assessing performance over multiple trials because participants
2 had chances to redeem bad throws. Third, the participants’ perception of pressure and
3 tension during the task was not measured. Verbal antisocial behaviour may only affect
4 performance if the competitor feels increased levels of pressure and tension. Future studies
5 could assess the role of a range of emotions, including anxiety, and their perceived impact,
6 on the verbal antisocial behaviour-performance relationship. Finally, researchers could use
7 other tasks which vary in difficulty, complexity, and duration, using participants with a wide
8 range of abilities, from novices to experts, in settings from the laboratory to the field, in
9 order to determine the impact of verbal antisocial behaviour on athletes’ cognition, emotion
10 and performance.
11 Conclusion
12 The current study showed that attentional processes and affective responses can be
13 manipulated using verbal behaviour intended to disadvantage an opponent. Although anger
14 and attentional states were related to task performance, with these relationships already
15 manifested during baseline task performance, manipulating these states using verbal
16 antisocial behaviour did not directly lead to changes in performance. Our findings suggest
17 that sledging, which has potential costs for both the individual and team, such as player
18 sanctions by the officials and injury caused by provoked opponents, may not impair
19 performance (see Al-Yaaribi et al., 2016). Indeed, after being sledged by England bowler, Ben
20 Stokes, during the opening match of the 2017 International Cricket Council’s Champions
21 Trophy, the Bangladesh batsman Tamim Iqbal, went on to score a century for his country.
22
[18]
VERBAL ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
1 References
2 Abernethy, B. (2001). Attention. In R.N. Singer, H.A. Hausenblas, & C. Janelle (Eds.),
3 Handbook of research on sport psychology (2nd ed.) (pp. 53-85). New York: John Wiley.
4 Al-Yaaribi, A., & Kavussanu, M. (2017). Teammate prosocial and antisocial behaviors predict
5 task cohesion and burnout: The mediating role of affect. Journal of Sport & Exercise
6 Psychology, 39, 199-208.
7 Al-Yaaribi, A., Kavussanu, M., & Ring, C. (2016). Consequences of teammate prosocial and
8 antisocial behavior for the recipient. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 26, 102-112.
9 Baumeister, R. F. (1984). Choking under pressure: self-consciousness and paradoxical effects
10 of incentives on skillful performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 610-
11 620.
12 Beedie, C. J., Terry, P. C., & Lane, A. M. (2000). The profile of mood states and athletic
13 performance: Two meta-analyses. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 12, 49-68.
14 Beilock, S. L., & Carr, T. H. (2001). On the fragility of skilled performance: What governs
15 choking under pressure? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 701.
16 Carver, C. S. (2001). Affect and the functional bases of behaviour: On the dimensional
17 structure of affective experience. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 345–356.
18 Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159.
19 Conmy, O. B. (2005). Investigating a conceptual framework for trash talk: Cognitive and affective
20 states. Thesis (Masters), Florida State University
21 Conmy, O. B. (2008). Trash talk in a competitive setting: Impact on self-efficacy, affect and
22 performance. Thesis (PhD), Florida State University
23 Conmy, B., Tenenbaum, G., Eklund, R. C., Roehrig, A. D., & Filho, E. M. (2013). Trash talk in
24 a competitive setting: Impact on self-efficacy and affect. Journal of Applied Social
25 Psychology, 43, 1002-1014.
[19]
VERBAL ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
1 Cooke, A., Kavussanu, M., McIntyre, D., Boardley, I., & Ring, C. (2011). Effects of
2 competitive pressure on expert performance: Underlying psychological, physiological
3 and kinematic mechanisms. Psychophysiology, 48, 1146-1156.
4 Cooke, A., Kavussanu, M., McIntyre, D., & Ring, C. (2010). Psychological, muscular and
5 kinematic factors mediate performance under pressure. Psychophysiology, 47, 1109-
6 1118.
7 Cooke, A., Kavussanu, M., McIntyre, D., & Ring, C. (2011). Effects of intergroup competition
8 on endurance performance: The roles of enjoyment, engagement, effort and anxiety.
9 Biological Psychology, 86, 370-378.
10 Dixon, N. (2007). Trash talking, respect for opponents and good competition. Sport, Ethics &
11 Philosophy, 1, 96-106.
12 Dixon, N. (2008). Trash talking as irrelevant to athletic excellence: Response to Summers.
13 Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 38, 90-96.
14 Eysenck, M. W., & Calvo, M. G. (1992). Anxiety and performance: The processing efficiency
15 theory. Cognition and Emotion, 6, 409-434.
16 Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical
17 power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior
18 Research Methods, 39, 175-191.
19 Gray, R. (2011). Links between attention, performance pressure, and movement in skilled
20 motor action. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 301-306.
21 Hanin, Y. L. (2000). Individual zones of optimal functioning (IZOF) model: Emotion
22 performance relationships in sport. In Y.L. Hanin (Ed.), Emotions in sport (pp. 65–89).
23 Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
24 Hardy, L., & Parfitt, G. (1991). A catastrophe model of anxiety and performance. British
25 Journal of Psychology. 82, 163-178.
[20]
VERBAL ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
1 Harmon-Jones, E., & Sigelman, J. D. (2001). State anger and prefrontal brain activity:
2 Evidence that insult-related relative left prefrontal activation is associated with
3 experienced anger and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 797-
4 803.
5 Hayes, A.F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A
6 regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
7 Jeffreys, M., & Newman, P. (2009) Aussie ban on sledging: Strewth, can you believe it?
8 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-1195613/Aussie-ban-sledging-Strewth-
9 believe-it.html
10 Jones, M. V., Lane, A. M., Bray, S. R., Uphill, M., & Catlin, J. (2005). Development and
11 validation of the sport emotion questionnaire. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 27,
12 407-431.
13 Kavanagh, E. (2014). The dark side of sport: Athlete narratives on maltreatment in high
14 performance environments. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Bournemouth University, UK.
15 Kavussanu, M. (2008). Moral behaviour in sport: A critical review of the literature.
16 International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1, 124-138.
17 Kavussanu, M., & Boardley, I. D. (2009). The prosocial and antisocial behavior in sport scale.
18 Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 31, 97-117.
19 Kavussanu, M., Crews, D. J., & Gill, D. L. (1998). The effects of single versus multiple
20 measures of biofeedback on basketball free throw shooting performance. International
21 Journal of Sport Psychology, 29, 132-144.
22 Lazarus, R. (2000). How emotions influence performance in competitive sports. The Sport
23 Psychologist, 14, 229-252.
24 Lee, M. J. (1998). Young people, sport, and ethics: An examination of values and attitudes to fair
25 play among youth sport competitors. London: English Sports Council.
[21]
VERBAL ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
1 Lee, M. J., Whitehead, J., & Ntoumanis, N. (2007). Development of the attitudes to moral decision-
2 making in youth sport questionnaire (AMDYSQ). Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 8, 369-392.
3 Masters, R., & Maxwell, J. (2008). The theory of reinvestment. International Review of Sport
4 and Exercise Psychology, 1, 160-183.
5 Meijen, C., Jones, M. V., McCarthy, P. J., & Sheffield, D. (2014). Challenge and threat states:
6 Cardiovascular, affective and cognitive responses to a sports-related speech task.
7 Motivation and Emotion, 38, 252-262.
8 Orrell, A., Masters, R. S. W., & Eves, F. F. (2009). Reinvestment and movement disruption
9 following stroke. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 23, 177-183.
10 Perkins-Ceccato, N., Passmore, S. R., & Lee, T. D. (2003). Effects of focus of attention
11 depend on golfers' skill. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21, 593-600.
12 Potter, S. (1947). Gamesmanship: The art of winning games without actually cheating. London:
13 Penguin.
14 Preacher, K. J., & Kelley, K. (2011). Effect size measures for mediation models: Quantitative
15 strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychological Methods, 16, 93-115.
16 Rainey, D. W., & Granito, V. (2010). Normative rules for trash talk among college athletes:
17 An exploratory study. Journal of Sport Behavior, 33, 276-294.
18 Sage, L., Kavussanu, M., & Duda, J. L. (2006). Goal orientations and moral identity as
19 predictors of prosocial and antisocial functioning in male association football players.
20 Journal of Sports Sciences, 24, 455-466.
21 Silva, J. M. (1979). Behavioural and situational factors affecting concentration and skill
22 performance. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1, 221-227.
23 Summers, C. (2007). Ouch…you just dropped the ashes. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 34,
24 68-76.
[22]
VERBAL ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
1 Tamborini, R., Chory, R., Lachlan, K., Westerman, D., & Skalski, P. (2008). Talking smack:
2 Verbal aggression in professional wrestling. Communication Studies, 59, 242-258.
3 Tauer, J. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2004). The effects of cooperation and competition on
4 intrinsic motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86,
5 849-861.
6 Uphill, M., Groom, R., & Jones, M. (2014). The influence of in-game emotions on basketball
7 performance. European Journal of Sport Science, 14, 76-83.
8 Vast, R. L., Young, R. L., & Thomas, P. R. (2010). Emotions in sport: Perceived effects on
9 attention, concentration and performance. Australian Psychologist, 45, 132-140.
10 Vine, S.J., Moore, L.J., & Wilson, M.R. (2016). An integrative framework of stress, attention,
11 and visuomotor performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 7.
12 Vine, S. J., Moore, L.J., Cooke, A., Ring, C., & Wilson, M.R. (2013). Quiet eye training: a
13 means to implicit motor learning. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 44, 367-386.
14 Wilson, M. (2008). From processing efficiency to attentional control: a mechanistic account
15 of the anxiety-performance relationship. International Review of Sport and Exercise
16 Psychology, 1, 184-201.
17 Woodman, T., Davis, P. A., Hardy, L., Callow, N., Glasscock, I., & Yuill-Proctor, J. (2009).
18 Emotions and sport performance: An exploration of happiness, hope, and anger.
19 Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 31, 169-188.
20 Wulf, G. (2013). Attentional focus and motor learning: A review of 15 years. International
21 Review of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 6, 77-104.
22
[23]
VERBAL ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
1 Acknowledgments
2 We would like to thank Henry McVittie, Rebecca Condie and Fatima Ahmed for help with
3 data collection.
4
5 Author Notes
6 1 Power calculations (Cohen, 1992) using G*Power (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner,
7 2007) indicated that, with power (1–β = .80) and significance (α = .05) at conventional levels,
8 and given the effect sizes obtained, the study would have required 267,630 participants to
9 detect significant between-group differences in the number of baskets and 42,820
10 participants to detect between-group differences in the total points score. Accordingly, the
11 non-significant direct effects for task performance were evidently true null effects and not
12 marginal effects in need of a few more participants to become significant.
13 2 The fact that, compared to the control group, the insult comments elicited greater
14 anger and both the insult and distraction comments elicited greater distraction confirm that
15 our verbal antisocial behaviour manipulations were effective.
16
[24]
VERBAL ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
Table 1
Effects of the Verbal Antisocial Behaviour Manipulation on Anger, Attention and Performance
Group
Insult Distraction Control
2 Variable (Range) M SE M SE M SE F(2, 56) p ηp
Anger (1-7) 2.57b 0.16 1.92a 0.16 1.99a 0.16 4.87 .01 .148
Distraction (1-7) 3.78a 0.24 4.02a 0.24 2.68b 0.23 9.27 .01 .249
Self-Focus (1-7) 4.53a 0.22 4.52a 0.22 5.14b 0.23 2.70 .07 .088
Baskets (0-10) 3.69 0.41 3.36 0.40 3.50 0.40 0.17 .84 .006
Total Points (0-50) 25.26 1.15 23.76 1.13 24.43 1.14 0.43 .65 .015
Note: Groups with different subscripts are significantly different from each other. The covariate-adjusted means were calculated using the
grand mean value of the covariate (i.e., pre-test value). Performance was assessed by the number of successful basketball free throws and the total points scored.
[25]